BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Similar documents
Max Josef Ernst, you stand before the Disciplinary Board, your. professional peers and members of the public for the imposition of a Public Reprimand.

Steven M. Mezrow, you stand before the Disciplinary Board, your

BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC REPRIMAND

Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated July 29, 2011, it is hereby

v. Attorney Registration No

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ORDER PER CURIAM: AND Now, this 9th day of February, 2010, upon consideration of the Report and

ORDER. 2012, the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent is hereby granted pursuant

People v. Crews, 05PDJ049. March 6, Attorney Regulation. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Respondent

Selected Model Rules of Professional Conduct Ellen C. Yaroshefsky

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ORDER. Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board dated March 24,

Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas. Texas State Bar Ethics Rules HIGHLIGHTS (SELECTED EXCERPTS)

AND NOW, this 19th day of June, 2013, upon consideration of the Report and

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: KEISHA M. JONES-JOSEPH NUMBER: 14-DB-035 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS

107 ADOPTED RESOLUTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No Disciplinary Docket No_ 3 Petitioner : No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 107,751. In the Matter of DAVID K. LINK, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 118,204. In the Matter of MATTHEW EDGAR HULT, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

FORMAL OPINION NO [REVISED 2015] Lawyer Changing Firms: Duty of Loyalty

Decision. Richard J. Engelhardt appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics. To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: HILLIARD CHARLES FAZANDE III DOCKET NO. 18-DB-055 REPORT OF HEARING COMMITTEE # 37 INTRODUCTION

ResPondent was admitted to the New Jersey bar in 1983 and has been in private practice in Lake Hiawatha, Morris County.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

People v. Richard O. Schroeder. 17PDJ046. January 9, 2018.

DECISION RE: SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P (b)

publicly reprimanded in 1994 for violations of RPC 1.3, RPC 1.4(a) and RPC 1.5(c) (failure

RPC RULE 1.5 FEES. (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services;

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 109,512. In the Matter of SUSAN L. BOWMAN, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

Ethics for the Criminal Defense Lawyer

STATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD. Decision No. 194

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner. v. : No.

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wexler, 139 Ohio St.3d 597, 2014-Ohio-2952.]

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 13-B-2461 IN RE: ANDREW C. CHRISTENBERRY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

: (Lackawanna County) ORDER

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 113,200. In the Matter of LARRY D. EHRLICH, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: SCOTT ROBERT HYMEL. NUMBER: 13-DB-030 c/w 14-DB-007

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: ANDREW CRAIG CHRISTENBERRY. NUMBER: 03-DB-052 c/w 05-DB-055

ENFORCEMENT RULES & DISCIPLINARY BOARD RULES RELATING TO REINSTATEMENT

People v. Kevin D. Heupel. 17PDJ005. July 11, 2017.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 119,254. In the Matter of JOHN M. KNOX, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE SHARON YVETTE FLORENCE 16-DB-059 RULING OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD INTRODUCTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 117,607. In the Matter of MATTHEW B. WORKS, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Misc. Docket AG NO. 14 SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND SEAN W.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 114,829. In the Matter of RICHARD HAITBRINK, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

SUBCHAPTER 1B - DISCIPLINE AND DISABILITY RULES SECTION DISCIPLINE AND DISABILITY OF ATTORNEYS

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: KEVIN MICHAEL STEEL NUMBER: 17-DB-018 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION

OPINION AND ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS

MODEL CODE OF ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND GUIDELINES FOR ENFORCEMENT

People v. Jerry R. Atencio. 16PDJ077. April 14, 2017.

S17Y0531. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID J. FARNHAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF GEORGIA DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS ) ) ) ) ) ) PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTER

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 109,886. In the Matter of DANIEL R. BECK, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 117,361. In the Matter of LAWRENCE E. SCHNEIDER, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY : : : : : : : : : :

: No Disciplinary Docket No. 3. No. 39 DB : Attorney Registration No : (Philadelphia) ORDER

Jason D. Saunders appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics. To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the

Opinion by Presiding Disciplinary Judge Roger L. Keithley and Hearing Board members, Annita M. Menogan and Laird T. Milburn, both members of the bar.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 118,378. In the Matter of LANCE M. HALEY, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) REPORT OF REFEREE. The following attorneys appeared as counsel for the parties:

To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the. a certification of default filed by the District IIIB Ethics

r'sti rorul'u7 l'j.'r?:i:':?i?':'+?' :l'?e'!'...':'d'j'i}"i't 17 JUN -2 PM 3: 30

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 102,473. In The Matter of JAMES A. CLINE, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 114,542. In the Matter of BENJAMIN N. CASAD, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Nicks, 124 Ohio St.3d 460, 2010-Ohio-600.]

Opinion by Presiding Disciplinary Judge Roger L. Keithley and Hearing Board Members Helen R. Stone and Paul Willumstad, both members of the bar.

: No. 852 Disciplinary Docket No. 3. : Nos. 148 DB 2003 & 174 DB : Attorney Registration No : (Allegheny County) ORDER

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: SATRICA WILLIAMS-BENSAADAT NUMBER: 12-DB-046

BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR. VSB Docket No , , , ORDER OF REVOCATION

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

REPORT, DECISION AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

People v. Jerold R. Gilbert. 17PDJ044. January 8, 2018.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Stubbs, 128 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-553.]

Kathleen Goger appeared on behalf of the District VB Ethics Committee. To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of

BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF VSB DOCKET: ELLIOT M. SCHLOSSER ORDER

Bomba [# ], 62, of San Antonio,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ORDER. 2015, the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent is hereby granted pursuant

BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: ROY JOSEPH RICHARD, JR. NUMBER: 14-DB-051 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT

People v. Varen Craig Belair. 17PDJ060. February 12, 2018.

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JANINNE LATRELL GILBERT NUMBER: 15-DB-002 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 07-BG A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No.

DECISION. CONSIDERING the Rules of Procedure and Evidence as adopted by the Tribunal on 11 February 1994, as subsequently amended;

: (Philadelphia) ORDER

Reid A. Adler appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics. Respondent did not appear for oral argument, despite proper notice.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) REPORT OF REFEREE. December 10, Thereafter, the Chief Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit

Conduct in this or any other jurisdiction where he is admitted to practice, shall not commit

CLIENT-LAWYER RELATIONSHIP: FEES MRPC 1.5

People v. Tolentino. 11PDJ085, consolidated with 12PDJ028. August 16, Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Gregory

Rule Change #2000(20)

Timothy J. McNamara appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics. To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Zapor, 127 Ohio St.3d 372, 2010-Ohio-5769.]

STATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD. Decision No. 131

S14Y0692. IN THE MATTER OF LAXAVIER P. REDDICK-HOOD. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and

Transcription:

BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL : No. 27 DB 2016 Petitioner : : File No. C1-14-1055 v. : : Attorney Registration No. 39879 ANDRE MICHNIAK : Respondent : (Philadelphia) PUBLIC REPRIMAND Andre Michniak, you stand before the Disciplinary Board, your professional peers and members of the public for the imposition of a Public Reprimand. It is an unpleasant task to publicly reprimand one who has been granted the privilege of membership in the bar of this Commonwealth. Yet as repugnant as this task may be, it has been deemed necessary that you receive this public discipline. Mr. Michniak, you are being reprimanded for your misconduct in connection with your representation of Maria Picardo-Vargas, who retained you for the purpose of obtaining an Employment Authorization Document ( EAD ) and reregistering for Temporary Protective Status ( TPS ). You did not inform your client that you did not carry malpractice insurance. The TPS re-registration period for Ms. Vargas was from April 3, 2013 to June 3, 2013. On or about May 3, 2013, Ms. Vargas completed the necessary paperwork to renew her TPS and obtain the EAD. Ms. Vargas paid you $815, which was for filing fees and legal fees. Because the total amount paid to you included filing fees, the total amount was required to be placed in a trust account, which you failed to do.

You failed to timely file the necessary paperwork with the United States Customs and Immigration Service ("USCIS"). As a result of your failure to timely file, Ms. Vargas lost her TPS. Ms. Vargas contacted you by letter and you failed to respond. Ms. Vargas filed a disciplinary complaint against you in September 2014. Disciplinary Counsel contacted you about this matter and based on the representations made by you, through your attorney, that the matter was being handled, the complaint was dismissed. These representations included that the requisite documents had been sent to the USCIS on September 9, 2014, prior to the date Ms. Vargas filed her complaint. In actuality, these documents had not been sent to USCIS. You later explained that when you made the assertion to Disciplinary Counsel, you believed the documents had been filed and your misrepresentation was not intentional. The record shows that you made Ms. Vargas monetarily whole. Although not required to do so, you have obtained malpractice insurance. Your conduct. in this matter has violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1. RPC 1.1 - A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. 2. RPC 1.3 - A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. 3. RPC 1.4(a)(3) and (4) - A lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and shall promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. 4. RPC 1.4(c) - A lawyer in private practice shall inform a new client in writing if the lawyer does not have professional liability insurance of at least $100,000 per occurrence and $300,000 in the aggregate per year. 2

5. RPG 1.16(d) - Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law. 6. RPG 5.3(b) - A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer. 7. RPG 8.1 (b) -A lawyer in connection with a disciplinary matter shall not fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from disciplinary authority. 8. RPG 8.4(c) - It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. The record shows that you received professional discipline in the form of an Informal Admonition on April 8, 2011 and a Public Reprimand with two years of probation and conditions related to mental healthcare on October 14, 2014. In explanation of the instant misconduct, you have divulged that you are experiencing various personal difficulties, you suffer from depression and have reinitiated counseling sessions with a mental health provider. While these difficulties do not excuse your misconduct, it is for these reasons that an additional term of probation for two years with continued mental health treatment has been imposed as part of the 3

discipline in this matter. This additional probation will commence on September 1, 2016. Mr. Michniak, your conduct in this matter is now fully public. This Public Reprimand is a matter of public record. As you stand before the Board today, we remind you that you have a continuing obligation to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement. This Public Reprimand is proof that Pennsylvania lawyers will not be permitted to engage in conduct that falls below professional standards. Be mindful that any future dereliction, including violation of the conditions of your probation, will subject you to disciplinary action. This Public Reprimand shall be posted on the Disciplinary Board's website at www.padisciplinarvboard.org. ~ Designated Member The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Administered by a designated panel of three Members of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on April 14, 2016. 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The undersigned, Respondent in the above proceeding, herewith acknowledges that the above Public Reprimand was administered in his presence and in the presence of the designated panel of The Disciplinary Board at 1601 Market Street, Suite 3320, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on April 14, 2016. ~ndr~q 5